A TÁRSADALMI INNOVÁCIÓ HÁLÓZATALAPÚ MEGKÖZELÍTÉSE
MANAGEMENT TEAMS
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Managers play an extremely important role in organizational change, growth and implementation of ambidexterity (e.g. Romanelli & Tushman, 1994; Mom et al., 2007;
Carmel & Halevi, 2009; Brion, Mothe, Sabatier, 2010). Shaping the organizational context through common strategic intent, vision and organizational values values, integrated and complex leadership, collaboration, challenging targets, supporting resource allocation and control and reward-systems is the central task of top management teams (e.g. Birkinshaw &
Gibson, 2004; Floyd and Lane, 2000; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2007
& 2011; Smith and Tushman, 2005; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997).
According to Quinn (1978), entrepreneurs are facilitators of organizational learning, the entrepreneur’s ability to shift between the entrepreneurial and the managerial role is crucial for organizational learning and healthy adaptation. On the one hand organizational learning has a self-reinforcing nature that can result in excessive exploitation, organizational myopia and competency traps (Levitt and March 1988). On the other hand excessive exploration is equally destructive and can cause a self-reinforcing exploration trap (Levinthal & March, 1993).
101
The relationship between managerial and entrepreneurial roles and learning mechanisms, especially the compositions regarding these roles in top management teams (TMT) is a currently underresearched field of ambidexterity. Vera and Crossan (2004) addressed a gap in existing literature, identifying that there is little evidence about the role of CEOs and top management teams in implementing organizational learning in their firms. They found that the management and leadership style influences the development of the stocks and flows of organizational learning, both learning by exploration and learning by exploitation.
The author in this research analyzed the perception and preferences of top managers about exploration and exploitation in their organizations. The sample included 84 responses, which means 84 managers (top managers, CEOs and owner-managers) from ca. 28-30 different organizations. Based on the dimension reduction the author defined 3 dimensions: the Exploration-Exploitation continuum, the Consciousness-Impulsiveness continuum and the Degree of Experimentation, that latter means the numbers and extension of new products, projects from few, radical to many, rather incremental innovations.
The results of the pilot study also highlights that top managers' perceptions about and preferences between exploration and exploitation are not simple orientations and choices. Top managers differ also in the level of consciousness-impulsiveness regarding these topics and that means that the different entrepreneurial and managerial roles can have an effect on the differences in the analyzed sample.
The third dimension, the degree of experimentation refines the understanding of the sample.
Not only the level of consciousness - impulsiveness separates different clusters of managers but the extension and frequencies of changes, newness, innovation activities. More but rather incremental developments can enhance a continuous learning environment with lower risks.
Few but more radical changes, innovations are more risky, but the possible degree of change also has a bigger impact.
The research has several limitations. First of all the results of this research are not representative for Hungarian top managers in entrepreneurial firms, and it is not an explanatory paper. It is rather an explorative research based on quantitative methods that tries to capture the similarities and differences between the analyzed top management teams. The conclusions of this research are limited only on the analyzed sample, and it is possible that based on this quite little sample the author drew biased conclusions. However the sample is not representative, the results of this research can generate suggestions for finetuning the further research in order to be able to capture Hungarian top management team patterns regarding their perception, preferences and behavior. Therefore the author suggest to continue this pilot study in a large sample and test whether the results of this research; the revealed dimensions and clusters characterize well these TMTs and how the composition of different entrepreneurial - managerial roles influence the performance of TMTs and their organizations regarding ambidexterity.
REFERENCES
Beckman, C. M. (2006): The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 49: pp. 741-758.
Benner, M. J. & Tushman, M. L. (2003): Exploitation, exploration, and process management:
The productivity dilemma revisited, Academy of Management Review, 28 évf. (2 sz.), pp.238-256.
Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C.B (2004): Building Ambidexterity into an Organization, MIT Sloan Management Review, 45 évf. pp. 47-55.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gupta, K. (2013): Clarifying The Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies, Academy of Management
102 Perspectives, 27. évf. pp. 287-298.
Brion, S., Mothe, C. and Sabatier, M. (2010): The Impact of Organisational Context and Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity, International Journal of Innovation Management, 14. évf. pp. 151-178.
Carmeli, A. and Halevi, M. Y. (2009): How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity, The Leadership Quarterly, 20. évf. pp. 207-218.
Chandler, G. & Hanks, S.H. (1998): An Examination of the Substitutability of Founders Human and Financial Capital in Emerging Business Ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, 13. évf. (5. sz.), pp. 353-370.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., & White, R. E. (1999): An organizational learning framework:
From intuition to institution, Academy of Management Review, 24. évf. (3. sz.), pp.
522–537.
Ferincz, A. (2016): Entrepreneur – Manager Discrepancy as an Inhibitor of Ambidexterity.
EURAM Conference Paper, Paris, 2016.06.01-04.
Floyd, S. and Lane, P. (2000): Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal, Academy of Management Review, 25. évf. pp. 154-177.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. (1994): Linking organizational context and managerial action:
The dimensions of quality in management, Strategic Management Journal, 15. évf. pp.
91-112.
He, Z-L. and Wong, P-K. (2004): Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis, Organization Science, 15. évf. (4. sz.), pp. 481-494.
Hortoványi, L. (2012): Entrepreneurial Management. Aula Kiadó: Budapest.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. (2006): Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, And Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents And Environmental Moderators, Management Science, 52. évf. (11. sz.), pp. 1661-1674.
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. & Volberda, H. W. (2008): Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership, Journal of Management Studies, 45. évf. pp. 982-1007.
Jones, O. & Macpherson, A. (2006): Inter-Organizational Learning and Strategic Renewal in SMEs Extending the 4I Framework, Long Range Planning, 39. évf. (2. sz.), pp. 155-175.
Kuratko, D.F. (2009): Introduction to entrepreneurship. South-Western Cengage Learning, Boston.
Levinthal, D.A. & March, J.G. (1993): The myopia of learning, Strategic Management Journal, 14. évf. pp. 95-112.
Levitt, B. & March J. (1988): Organizational Learning, Annual Review of Sociology, 14. évf.
pp. 319-338.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J. F. (2006): Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration, Journal of Management, 32. évf. pp. 646-672.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organisational Learning, Organisation Science, 2. évf. (1. sz.), pp. 71-87.
Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. (2007): Investigating Managers’ Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows, Journal of Management Studies, 44.
évf. pp. 910-931.
O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2004): The ambidextrous organization, Harvard Business Review, 82. évf. pp. 74-81.
103
O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2008): Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator’s dilemma, Research in Organizational Behavior, 28. évf. pp.
185-206.
O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2011): Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit, California Management Review, 53. évf. pp. 5-22.
O'Reilly, G. A., Harreld, J. B. & Tushman, M. L. (2009): Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities, California Management Review, 51. évf. pp. 1-25.
Penrose, E. T. (1959): The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Peretti, F. & Negro, G. (2006): Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design, Academy of Management Journal, 49. évf. pp. 759-777.
Probst, G. and Raisch, S. (2005): Organizational crisis: The logic of failure, Academy of Management Executive, 19. évf. pp. 90-105.
Quinn, J.B. (1978): Strategic Change: Logical Incrementalism, Sloan Management Review, 20. évf. (1. sz.), pp. 7-19.
Raisch, S. (2009): Balanced structures: Designing organizations for profitable growth, Long Range Planning, 41. évf. pp. 483-508.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008): Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators, Journal of Management, 34. évf. pp. 375-409.
Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M. L. (1994): Organizational Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test, Academy of Management Journal, 37. évf. pp. 1141-1166.
Smith, K. G. & Cao, Q. (2007): Entrepreneurial Perspective of Firm-Environment Relationship, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1. évf. (3-4. sz.), pp. 329-344.
Smith, W., & Tushman, M. L. (2005): Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams, Organization Science, 16. évf. (5. sz.), pp.
522–536.
Smith, W., Binns, A. & Tushman, M. (2010): Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously, Long Range Planning, 43. évf. pp. 448-461.
Stanworth, M. & Curran, J. (1976): Growth and the Small Firm: An Alternative View, Journal of Management Studies, 13. évf. (2. sz.), pp. 95-110.
Stevenson, H.H. (2006): A Perspective on Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School, Cambridge.
Szerb, L. (2010): Vállalkozások, vállalkozási elméletek, vállalkozások mérése és a GlobálisVállalkozói és Fejlődési Index. Akadémiai Doktori Értekezés. Pécsi Tudományegyetem.
Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1996): Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review, 38. évf. pp.
8-30.
Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2004): Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning, Academy of Management Review, 29. évf. (2. sz.), pp. 222–240.
Zollo, M. & Winter, S.G. (2002): Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities, Organizational Science, 13. évf. (3. sz.), pp. 3393-51.
104
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM OF AN INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE: THE ESSENCE